Interesting provocative article, I bet it will be praised on some Microsoft sponsored conference.
Wine and Proton are not tributes to Win32's portability. They are symptoms of a desktop market that Microsoft locked hard enough that the rest of us had to reverse engineer our way out. Market damage, not collaboration.
The ecosystem was not won on technical merit. OEM per-processor licensing, embrace-extend-extinguish against Java and the web, document format lock-in, and a long pattern of obstructing standardization attempts that would constrain Windows (PWI in 1994, ECMA-234 in 1995, OpenDocument later) while pushing their own through when it extended reach.
No CS curriculum holds up Win32 as exemplary API design. No system copied it. A successful API earns adoption. Win32 enforced it.
Speaking of portability, As a developer who has shipped software on Windows for over a decade, and then some on Linux. Targeting Windows is insanely easy, because of the ABI. You compile once and you have an extremely high chance that it just works on every Windows version. Not perfect, but better than any other platform ever made. Heck I've used software from CDROMS where the binary was compiled 20 years ago and it still works today without any modification.
With Linux, you have to target specific distros, do something insane like a giant bundle of everything, or static linking or some other craziness, or open up your source code and let someone else take the headache. Oh and I almost forgot.. install scripts that detect distros, install dependencies. And god help you if you need to ship a kernel module.
>The ecosystem was not won on technical merit. OEM per-processor licensing, embrace-extend-extinguish against Java and the web, document format lock-in, and a long pattern of obstructing standardization attempts that would constrain Windows (PWI in 1994, ECMA-234 in 1995, OpenDocument later) while pushing their own through when it extended reach.
Windows has broad hardware compatibility, a stable enough application platform (see above), aggressive backward compatibility, a large developer ecosystem, and distribution through OEMs. Those are technical merits, even if they are not the only merits.
>do something insane like a giant bundle of everything, or static linking
But isn't this exactly what shipping on Windows looks like? I've just checked my Windows partition and there are 43 instances of sqlite dll and 16 instances of Qt5Core.dll because every program that uses those libs needs to include them in their "giant bundle of everything".
You can also simply use Flatpak with the Freedesktop Runtime. It runs everywhere regardless of the distribution. For games Steam offers something similar with the Steam Runtimes. You simply develop for that one container and the software will still be running in 20 years. Even though, of course, making software proprietary isn’t best practice. If you make everything open source from the start the various Linux distributions and users can adapt it themselves for their distribution and eventually modernize it as well.
Early Java was horrid for everybody except the architecture astronauts who could cram ten GoF design patterns into a hello world program. It only got traction because a different wannabe monopolist, Sun Microsystems, spent heavily to get it pushed into CS curriculums. Fortunately, the one-two punch of Linux and Intel killed Sun or we might all be cursing them today instead of Microsoft.
None of your opinion on Java changes the fact that Microsoft used it's monopoly to execute an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy on Java. It is well documented since they lost an anti-trust court case on it [1].
That lawsuit was overturned on appeal. The DOJ settled with Microsoft's offer to publish some APIs, instead of launching another trial.
The Java stuff wasn't even the craziest part. The whole thing from investigation to the appeal took the FTC and DOJ 11 years, where they were unable to kill of Microsoft's dominance of Internet Explorer through lawfare, but it only took Mozilla and later Google six years, nearly half that time, for an open-source web browsers to have more market share than Internet Explorer.
It turns out that a better product was all that was needed. It's too bad that the Mozilla Foundation has changed course and is now adamant that Firefox be as unusable as possible.
That’s not really true: it just didn’t win on the merits you care about. But it did have other merits: backwards and forwards compatibility, excellent developer documentation, and no need for expensive workstation grade hardware.
I don’t disagree on the skullduggery, but it’s worth bearing in mind that Sun, Oracle, IBM, and all the other big vendors of that period engaged in similar skullduggery. Microsoft was simply better at it, had better timing/luck, and therefore more resources and reach to play those games.
But one of those companies was always destined to become a scumbag monopoly: if it hadn’t been Microsoft, it would have been one of the others.
And the war to kick them back into line through OSS would have played out similarly, I suspect.
Sun was actually a decent company once upon a time. Their problem was that Microsoft excluded them from the market and starved them for money for so long that their hardware stopped being competitive, so that by the time Java made it so you could run some software on it, nobody wanted their hardware regardless.
It was only after they went bankrupt and got bought by Oracle that things like OpenSolaris getting killed off and Java lawsuits started happening.
> "Their problem was that Microsoft excluded them from the market and starved them for money..."
That is not what happened. Sun Microsystems had immense revenue and clout in the server and enterprise space because of the dotcom boom, so much so that their advertising declared "We're the dot in dotcom." Microsoft was trying to duke it out with them in the server space but Windows Server was just barely starting to become decent at that point so MS didn't get all that much traction.
When the dotcom bust hit, Sun went into a tailspin because of the glut of Sun server hardware from dead dotcoms at bargain basement prices. That eventually passed but by that time Linux + Intel was good enough to undercut both Sun and Microsoft in the server space. With no way to compete with free as in beer software, Sun was doomed.
> Sun Microsystems had immense revenue and clout in the server and enterprise space because of the dotcom boom, so much so that their advertising declared "We're the dot in dotcom."
Which is why Microsoft had to use such dirty tricks to prevent them from making inroads into workstations and desktops at the point that they still had competitive hardware.
> With no way to compete with free as in beer software, Sun was doomed.
Sun was a hardware company that did everything it could to commoditize software. That strategy works extremely well for hardware companies -- Intel successfully did the same thing for many years -- as long as their hardware is competitive.
They were perfectly content to sell SPARC hardware with Linux on it. But to do that they need to sell enough of it to keep up the R&D, i.e. they needed to ship desktop chips in similar quantities to Intel instead of only servers.
Original Sun hardware was rugged, operating mounted in truck beds running across corrugated roads rugged, optional full Faraday shielding for box, cables, and monitors tough. Really positive "never going to let you go" slotting of expansion cards into motherboard that resisted vibration issues. Fans that could go in a building HVAC.
That came at a cost and the market size of people that really really wanted / needed that field toughness was considerably smaller than the general office usage market.
Because that's the market you can win when you're locked out of the mass market. But it's also not sustainable because then the mass market product will move up (Xeons based on x86) and you still can't move down with Microsoft blocking you.
Whereas if not for that, you could do both. Design a solid chip and then put dozens of them in a big iron cabinet for big money but also offer desktops with just one of them for prices that compete with Dell. Except that Dell's customers expect to open their existing Office documents and run their Windows API proprietary software and then won't buy from you.
It went the other way around. Object-oriented programming came out of academia, before Sun adopted it into Java. They adopted it full-force, making programmers jump through all of its hoops whether they wanted to or not, unlike C++ and Python where for most programs, the only hint of the language being object oriented is the syntax.
The point is not that Win32 is exemplary. The point is that it's compatible. More compatible, in some cases, than native apps for non-Windows platforms. A Win32 binary that runs in Wine is likely to work on more Linux distros than a native Linux binary, due to decisions made by glibc and distro maintainers over the years.
Uh, no, a Win32 binary will run in Wine because of the concerted effort of thousands of talented developers for more than a decade, painstakingly reimplemting Win32 into a a compatibility layer for it to run on Linux.
There has been little to no interest in doing the reverse, at least until WSL, which is just containers anyways. (WSfU barely counts as an "attempt.")
I would hardly consider anything relying on a compatibility shim "compatible." Especially since Wine is not a perfect shim!
> you cant just go and download a precompiled blob from a website and run it everywhere, like you can with macOS and Windows.
Sure you can! It's called AppImage or Flatpak or Snap!
I'm also not sure why compiling is treated as some taboo? It's not like Windows where it's actually impossible to set up a toolchain. Your distro comes with one installed! So that means you can run a single installer file, just like in Windows, except this is a shell script or anything else—and it can just compile and link everything for you, quite easily! The user doesn't have to know or understand how this works at all.
Why is that bad? It's bad to run binary blobs...! It's good to tailor your software to your specific environment and hardware!
they don't run without a runtime, and that runtime is backed by glibc, they just moved the issue one more layer.
Virtually all software for the desktop is compiled once and then shipped to users and they never see the source.
This works for Windows and macOS because their ABI allows it.
For Linux you have to target each and every distro like a whole OS and keep up with it or your app won't run anymore after a few years.
This is also the reason why Linux has package managers and windows didn't have a official one for nearly 40 years. So its not all bad.
I kinda see this as a usability issue. If the app developer is willing to wrap the whole “download source and then compile” with a one click installation shield type software, most users would be fine.
But yeah then they need to track distros and such. I hope there are a couple of distros that have better back compatibility eventually.
It's the same problem, just spread out to different layers...Windows had DLL hell too, and then eventually everyone just packaged all of their required versions of DLLs and redistributables into their MSI.
What about Linux do you think changes so much? Everything still speaks X11 or PulseAudio on desktop. More broadly, the standard library is...the standard library? What's the specific issue?
Proton represents Valve's failure to make Linux gaming attractive to game studios.
Not even those that have Android/Linux NDK builds, bother with porting to GNU/Linux.
Besides blaming Microsoft, look inside into the endless reboots of audio stack, GNOME vs KDE vs XFCE vs Sway vs whatever is cool in Linux Desktops this month, X Windows vs Wayland,...
I was a believer, until 2010, then went back into Windows 7. If it wasn't for gaming and .NET, I would probably be on macOS instead.
Taking care of Linux deployments is part of my job, so I know pretty well how it goes today, don't need the have you tried standard Linux forum replies.
> Proton represents Valve's failure to make Linux gaming attractive to game studios.
> Not even those that have Android/Linux NDK builds, bother with porting to GNU/Linux.
It is a huge hassle to make a new build to a new platform. You double build system, release management, and testing. Compared to just one plat. Games are complicated, and testing all the dynamic behaviour is also complicated.
Making just a Win32 build really saves resources.
Also Win32 has been a stable api for a long time. Linux apis tend to change, and old games don't get re-built. The win32 build is therefore also provably a lot more long lived, compered to anything you build on linux.
Thats also important because of the Dont Kill Games effort and so on.
That reasoning fails flat given the same studios have no issues supporting iOS, PlayStation, Swift and XBox, which are completely alien to what is used on Android NDK, APIs that are GNU/Linux compatible for 3D rendering, audio and asset loading.
Valve basically failed to provide the business value for those studios.
All true, but simultaneously, if you look at it not in the “how did we get here” but “what’s out there today” light, it’s an option that can run on a lot of platforms. Not by some particular merit but because history happened this way - but that’s not a problem with the technology itself.
The article defines "success" in the Windows context as being "available everywhere". It does not address how it got to that point.
And sure, you might not like Microsoft, and you may not like how it became successful (using the above definition) but the fact that it is available everywhere is not in dispute.
Of course most successful things have murky pasts. We don't necessarily agree with how it got there, but there it is. That is, at least in the technical sense irrelevant. You may prefer LP's or CD's, but streaming is now the successful way to get your music.
That doesn't mean it's the only way though, and of course you are free to not use Windows programs, or play games via Steam etc. That is your choice.
If you listen to CS professors you'd believe that Haskell would be very successful despite having limited if none real world usage. The reality is that catering to your users is much more important than having idealistic system.
In my experience even with games that have native Linux support running through proton seems to have less issues.
winapi introduced event based programming to the masses and took it to the next level. You could argue that they weren't the first, but blanket singling it out as bad design makes no sense.
This control flow has been taught everywhere and is the basis of node's async loop (node waits on io, winapi waits on kb/mouse/timers) so "no system copied it" is complete ignorance. It is the first thing I think of when I'm designing an async flow.
> Wine and Proton are not tributes to Win32's portability.
I emphatically disagree. It is a hilarious and catastrophic failure of Linux userspace that the best API for running games on Linux is Win32. This has absolutely nothing to do with what Microsoft locking down the desktop market. It has 100% literally everything to do with Linux userspace being a clusterfuck of terrible design.
Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked. They didn't have to. They could have simply invented a better API that didn't suck. But that's quite hard.
So yeah. I emphatically, but respectfully, disagree with your entire thesis.
It's Linux's failure that one of the world's biggest corporations outspent it on marketing by orders of magnitude? You can sell crap like hotcakes with enough money and advertising minds. Yours isn't really an argument for Linux APIs being any worse or better quality.
> Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked.
WINE would have been invented one way or another because enough people would have wanted to run Windows programs on Linux in a world where Linux had dominant market share. For Pete's sake, there are Commodore 64 emulators for Linux in a world where that system has been dead for decades. It has nothing to do with what "works" or not. WINE and Proton are developed as actively as they are today because Microslop has been able to market so effectively to convince average joes and businesss leaders to buy their crappy OS. This has nothing to do with the quality of APIs.
> They could have simply invented a better API that didn't suck.
Is there ever a situation where this statement isn't true? Everything built in software can be seen as sucking, and all software could have been written better the first time around.
> No, It is Linux's severe failure that it lacked a singular, stable, and unified userspace GUI API.
Careful, some people are too hell bend on idealogies than making a reliable product. They'd never understand this.
This is one of the reasons why open source (free as in beer) will never work for anything serious. When my work depends upon a software someone made for free, there's an unnecessary power dynamic in play where since I didn't pay for it, they can rugpull me anytime.
Before someone comes with the argument of forking, that's not how an economy works. I can't be the farmer, the truck driver, the salesman and sometimes even the buyer at the same time.
The kernel doesn't owe anything to the distros, which is insane, distros doesn't owe anything to the various libraries and vice versa, none of them owes anything to the application developers. It's a boat where each person is rowing in their own direction because they don't care what others does with their code and they don't have to. Because they are working for FREE®.
The effects of this is catastrophic. Everytime I try to switch, I can't find a single userspace application that works half as good as windows applications. People need incentives to make their work good, no one does anything for free. Free just means it sucks.
If microsoft/apple/google tomorrow releases their own distro, every single one will abandon their flavor of the week arch/ubuntu/mint/fedora for that one. One that's made by people in exchange for money. I bet the ubuntu developers use macbooks.
> because developers don't build native Linux games.
Correct. However you grossly misunderstand why why dev don't build native Linux games. The answer is that distributing proprietary software that works on "Linux" is an absolute unmitigated clusterfuck of pain, misery, and woe.
Cross-platfrom is very very easy. It's a solved problem. There are indie devs with custom engines that can easily ship for Windows, macOS, iPhone, Android, Playstation, Switch, and Xbox.
If Linux userspace had an ABI that wasn't garbage then adding "Linux" to that list would be very easy. The fact that devs don't and it is your primary clue.
I keep putting "Linux" in quotes because back in the day with r/LinuxGaming would spam Kickstarters begging for Linux support that's what they asked for. Of course there is no such thing as shipping for Linux. There is the Linux kernel and glibc and a kajillion different distros that are all unique and terrible in an myriad of different ways.
And it turns out that Linux is such a minefield clusterfuck that the actually best ABI is Win32. It'd be great if Linux designed a new ABI that was better. Seriously, that'd be awesome. But in the meantime Win32 it is!
> It is a hilarious and catastrophic failure of Linux userspace that the best API for running games on Linux is Win32
Studios don't target Linux, they target Windows and sometimes Mac.
Imagine if Flappy Bird targeted only iPhone, because there were only 50,000,000 Android users in the world (hardly worth supporting). Then Android creates an iPhone runtime on Android so people can play Flappy Bird on it, and you conclude "iPhone actually worked, this is evidence that Android is a hilarious and catastrophic failure."
I don't need to imagine a made-up scenario that doesn't make sense. We can look at what has happened at face value.
The calculus is very very very boring and simple. Game devs will support every single platform on the planet in which the cost to support that platform - both directly and long-term maintenance - is less than the increased revenue that platform provides.
It is not uncommon for indie games on custom engines to support Windows, Playstation, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox. And, depending on the game, iOS or Android. Sometimes macOS although that's increasingly rare.
Native Linux builds are pretty rare. Especially before Proton got pretty good with Steamdeck release.
Supporting Linux is a monumentally tremendous pain in the ass. Radically more than literally any other platform. It is hands-down the hardest and most painful to support natively. So painful that emulating Win32 is a clear win. Valve's runtime helps a lot. And supporting another path is just a waste of time.
> The calculus is very very very boring and simple. Game devs will support every single platform on the planet in which the cost to support that platform - both directly and long-term maintenance - is less than the increased revenue that platform provides.
Companies end up not doing profitable things all the time, for many reasons. One rational reason is that while action 1 might be profitable, action 2 is even more profitable. So the fact that Linux is not supported does not show that it would not be profitable, but rather that there are other things the companies can use labour for which they think is even more profitable. If they could freely clone their employees (and "unclone" them afterwards) all profitable things would get done.
(This is just nitpicking about your economic argument, I have no reason to think your conclusion is wrong).
> Supporting Linux is a monumentally tremendous pain in the ass. Radically more than literally any other platform. It is hands-down the hardest and most painful to support natively.
Funny, I have the same feelings after 5 seconds of using MSVC or looking at Win32 documentation. Or is it WinRT now, or is it .NET Core, or .NET Framework, or UWP or OLE or COM, or whatever the API du jour is which will be slightly incompatible and incomplete with the rest of the ecosystem in poorly documented and inscrutable ways?
Performance profiling and debugging tools are critical for game development. What's your equivalent to strace again, the one that's built into the system natively? There isn't one?
All major game engines I am aware of support native Linux builds and have for years, anyways.
I guess there's a reason 80% of the servers in the world run Windows. Because it's so hard to develop for. Er, uh...no wait!
Sarcasm is an extremely poor method of communication. Speak plainly and clearly.
> Performance profiling and debugging tools are critical for game development.
Profiling and debugging tools are RADICALLY superior on Windows. RADICALLY. GDB/LLDB is garbage. For debugging Visual Studio (for adults, not VSCode), or on special occassion WinDbg, is great. Raddbg may be awesome some day and may also support Linux. That'll be great. Today is not that day.
Superluminal is spectacular. They're working very hard on a Linux version. It's taking them a long time because Linux is bad.
> All major game engines I am aware of support native Linux builds and have for years, anyways.
Unity and Unreal do have buttons to export to Linux. Most proprietary game engines don't have Linux clients. Linux for headless servers you control is fine.
> 80% of the servers
Yawn.
The Linux pain is trying to deploy proprietary binaries that run on customer machines which are infinite in variation. Running headless on a single Linux image you control is very different.
Anyhow. Let me know when you ship a game with 3D graphics to customers and have to deal with all their support issues!
Hey, want to race to install toolchains? I'll install everything I need to build the Linux kernel and, say, typical SDL2 applications. I'll give you a 3 hour head start, all you have to do is install Visual Studio, WDK, and the Windows SDK, and hope they play nicely with each other!
Good luck! Then we can switch places so you can install for the 5.3% (and growing) of your gaming userbase that doesn't use an OS with ads in it.
P.S. he who lives in the house of WinDbg is not allowed to throw stones. At anyone. Ever. Nobody thinks that it is "great," you must be kidding.
I think you are coming at this with very different priorities. For most people, installing tool chains is a one time job, that they can grit their teeth through if it works well for them. No one wants to constantly install or reinstall and make sure the installation process is lightning fast.
It's the reason why Linux still hasn't taken off on desktop. People want good application support, not infinite customisations and blazing fast compile speeds. In fact, slow compile speeds might even give people an excuse to go chat with colleagues and take breaks. What you want is not what others want too
You know which platform is super duper mega easy to cross-compile to? And you know what platfrom is (almost) FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to compile against an arbitrarily old version of glibc? The answer (in order) is Windows and Linux.
But in anycase you still have it wrong. Compiling and running for your machine isn't the problem. The question is can you give me a binary that runs on my machine. And also I'm not going to tell you what the environment is. But I will yell at you if it doesn't work.
I do agree it's annoying this isn't default behavior.
> you must be kidding.
Geez you are very frustrating to communicate with. I literally said "for special occasion". Good grief. Visual Studio debugger is kinda mediocre but still best-in-class and Linux doesn't even have an equivalent to compare against. WinDbg has some slick commands for super niche cases. Awful GUI with no discoverability though. (Just like Linux! bad dum tsh)
There's something deeply satisfying about compiling a Win32 desktop application and knowing that single binary will run unmodified on essentially every Windows machine from XP onward, and look nearly identical doing it. High-DPI is the one real caveat, but even that's manageable with a manifest. I'm not sure any other platform-native API comes close to that combination of reach and consistency. Running them on other operating systems is really just a bonus.
They exist but they’re in the minority. Compare this with the Linux world, where userspace compatibility between one major distro release and the next, 12 months apart is very much a roll of the dice.
To be fair, if you use only the Linux syscall interface, then a program that you compiled on x86 in the 90s will probably still run anywhere today. Linus is adamant about this.
But if you want to use... anything else, then it's unlikely to work at all unless you are very specific about your target. There isn't one company deciding that glibc or mesa or whatever is binary backward compatible on every kernel for every platform forever. Microsoft is, somewhat, one such company. That's why System32\*.dll have such stable interfaces -- it's their job to translate whatever late 90s system/graphics facilities some boomer dreamed up into whatever the current Windows hodgepodge of system services support. It's no wonder Microsoft is trying to drop support for hardware like crazy.
This implicit compatibility isn't true for all Windows programs, though. Consider Visual Studio. Couldn't compile my console program on my computer and run it on my dad's computer. He had to first install the "Redistributable," which for him and most people might as well be a rootkit and a super scary virus program bad guy.
> To be fair, if you use only the Linux syscall interface, then a program that you compiled on x86 in the 90s will probably still run anywhere today. Linus is adamant about this.
This is frankly the opposite of how it should've been. Who cares that the kernel ABI doesn't change from release to release? As an end-user, I couldn't care less. Even as a developer I care very little indeed, because I'm not writing drivers. I'm almost never programming directly against the kernel's interface but rather using my language's standard library, which is already an abstraction over the kernel interface.
Platform vendors (this includes distro maintainers) should recompile and re-package libraries for each new ABI in each OS release, done. End-users won't ever notice, they can run their applications portably because the user-mode library ABIs haven't changed... Which is what Win32 has done, and what glibc has consistently failed to do.
The true success of WinAPI, including originally with Windows, is that it provided stable ABI from version to version, and didn't lock you into any language.
The Unix world was lazy about it because of the approach of recompiling across somewhat source compatible systems thanks to POSIX, so there was reasonably fast portability if you didn't go too far off the beaten path.
But doing anything other than C (w/ Cfront maybe) and Fortran and Pascal was a problem, even without binary compat. Even from version to version (legacy of which we now have in glibc breaking binary compat all the time).
Microsoft went hard on the idea that if you bought/build a program for Windows version X, it would run on version X+1. You didn't have to buy a special upgraded version. You could update easier.
The same approach later drove introduction of things like PC System Design Guide and ACPI so you could just upgrade your computers instead of waiting for special OS upgrade just to boot (like it was common in other platforms, including Mac, VMS, and Unix workstation world).
Design wise, GUI parts of WinAPI aren't all that different from working with X intrinsics etc libraries (i.e. the parts above raw xlib)
Hasn't it taken gargantuan multi decade efforts of hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations to make it work at all, let alone well, on Linux?
Hasn't it taken gargantuan multi decade efforts of hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations to make [WINE] work at all, let alone well, on Linux?
Arguably there has been equal or larger effort invested/wasted in cross-platform and cross-distro frameworks/APIs/packaging and yet the result still doesn't work. Partly that's due to duplication of effort; there's (mostly) one WINE competing with Qt/Gtk/whatever times Snap/Flatpak/AppImage/whatever.
Because hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations made it happen, not because Microsoft wanted it but in spite of it.
In this case the route to success was via marketing (isn't it always so?), via market share, via application dominance (attracting developers to develop for the platform), and via insane levels of backward's compatibility. It was successful not because of the code itself (end users don't care 2 figs about the elegance of the code) but because they optimized for the end user experience.
Linux optimized for the experienced, technically adept user, who wanted to fiddle, customize and could write programs. Apple optimized for the "now", ignoring the past and regularly made existing programs obsolete and unrunnable.
I wrote windows programs in 1995. They still run today. They have run on all versions of Windows since then, without even a recompile. Everything I have [1] just keeps running. And it turns out, that's something users really want.
I get that we're all technical folk here. I get that we strive for technical excellence and elegance. I get that we operate in the "now", ignoring hardware and software from the past. But the market is different, and wants different things. If you want a successful business you need to understand the market, not just your own aesthetics. Microsoft understands that, and that's why the market (especially the business market) relies on them.
[1] - Except games. Copy protection on some of my games means they don't run anymore - but to be fair those were hacks designed specifically to prevent the game running in the first place.
As an added bonus, since win32 is so old. AI is quite strong at generating code for it, I have even had success with qwen 3.5 1.5B parameters with win32 and opengl 1.1
I think not only win32 but win32 + directx API, the most used API for gaming industry. Wine , Proton , Crossover, DXVK, VKD3D, D3DMetal , WineD3D, Apple game porting toolkit , SteamOS , Winlator/Gamehub etc android Wine variant , ReactOS , MinGW from that API
Considering you can use 500 kilobyte distro of tcc that can self compile to build win32 apps and those versions will very easily run on wine. I think it is a valid point and a strategy I have used for sometime. Since windows can't decide what you should use for developing Windows apps
> something that comes from consensus from a big, top-down standardisation body usually fails.
So IETF is the "big, top-down standardisation body" producing "bloated, inefficient and largely unused standards" here?
Wouldn't be the first time someone characterized it as such.
> The internet is an example of the implementation of a top-down approach when a scientist submits a paper for an RFC and iterates on it until it's de-facto protocol of the internet.
Yeah, he must be talking about the IETF. Very consensus-driven, most participants funded by vendors, difficult to iterate after RFC approval.
> While their nimbler competition is being adopted, iterated, and expanded. In the internet protocol use cases, OSI Model is now essentially just a theory taught in networking training, certification, and classes. In the real world, the internet is TCP/IP, and it's TCP IP that runs on computers, phones, and other devices.
Now I'm confused. TCP/IP are literally defined by IETF RFCs.
Technically the Internet runs on "the Internet Protocol Suite" but people just say "TCP/IP" for short. That doesn't mean to exclude UDP, SCTP, or whatever.
He means the Internet runs on the Internet Protocol Suite and not the "superior" OSI Protocol Suite (that people under age 50 have never heard of because it failed).
Yes, which the article claims is just a theory now, irrelevant for the real world. More crucially though, http3 doesn't use TCP because it is built on top of UDP.
Sometimes I think that, if Java ditched the idea of JVM and followed what modern languages did today (write once, compile on every major platform), things would be different.
I don't think so. Oracle isn’t a consumer-facing company and doesn't really care about that sector. SWT and Swing will likely remain as ugly as they are for the next century, regardless of their popularity.
Microsoft, Google, and Apple have invested millions to polish their GUI solutions because that’s where their revenue comes from.
The JVM and the ecosystem it sustains are more important than Java itself. The main reason newer languages can run "everywhere" is because hardware has been commoditized and the number of server OSes has been reduced to two. The JVM was designed to flatten a much more diverse environment than what we have today. Whatever you produce that can run on the JVM will still be runnable in 30 years.
The trouble there is that Sun was right about that.
Doing it that way works great for open source where anyone can recompile the software for a new target, but for proprietary software they would have given you a Windows blob and that's about it.
Meanwhile the problems with Java were mostly not the JVM. Its current problem is, of course, Oracle.
(2024)
Interesting provocative article, I bet it will be praised on some Microsoft sponsored conference.
Wine and Proton are not tributes to Win32's portability. They are symptoms of a desktop market that Microsoft locked hard enough that the rest of us had to reverse engineer our way out. Market damage, not collaboration.
The ecosystem was not won on technical merit. OEM per-processor licensing, embrace-extend-extinguish against Java and the web, document format lock-in, and a long pattern of obstructing standardization attempts that would constrain Windows (PWI in 1994, ECMA-234 in 1995, OpenDocument later) while pushing their own through when it extended reach.
No CS curriculum holds up Win32 as exemplary API design. No system copied it. A successful API earns adoption. Win32 enforced it.
Speaking of portability, As a developer who has shipped software on Windows for over a decade, and then some on Linux. Targeting Windows is insanely easy, because of the ABI. You compile once and you have an extremely high chance that it just works on every Windows version. Not perfect, but better than any other platform ever made. Heck I've used software from CDROMS where the binary was compiled 20 years ago and it still works today without any modification.
With Linux, you have to target specific distros, do something insane like a giant bundle of everything, or static linking or some other craziness, or open up your source code and let someone else take the headache. Oh and I almost forgot.. install scripts that detect distros, install dependencies. And god help you if you need to ship a kernel module.
>The ecosystem was not won on technical merit. OEM per-processor licensing, embrace-extend-extinguish against Java and the web, document format lock-in, and a long pattern of obstructing standardization attempts that would constrain Windows (PWI in 1994, ECMA-234 in 1995, OpenDocument later) while pushing their own through when it extended reach.
Windows has broad hardware compatibility, a stable enough application platform (see above), aggressive backward compatibility, a large developer ecosystem, and distribution through OEMs. Those are technical merits, even if they are not the only merits.
>do something insane like a giant bundle of everything, or static linking
But isn't this exactly what shipping on Windows looks like? I've just checked my Windows partition and there are 43 instances of sqlite dll and 16 instances of Qt5Core.dll because every program that uses those libs needs to include them in their "giant bundle of everything".
You can also simply use Flatpak with the Freedesktop Runtime. It runs everywhere regardless of the distribution. For games Steam offers something similar with the Steam Runtimes. You simply develop for that one container and the software will still be running in 20 years. Even though, of course, making software proprietary isn’t best practice. If you make everything open source from the start the various Linux distributions and users can adapt it themselves for their distribution and eventually modernize it as well.
> "...embrace-extend-extinguish against Java..."
Early Java was horrid for everybody except the architecture astronauts who could cram ten GoF design patterns into a hello world program. It only got traction because a different wannabe monopolist, Sun Microsystems, spent heavily to get it pushed into CS curriculums. Fortunately, the one-two punch of Linux and Intel killed Sun or we might all be cursing them today instead of Microsoft.
None of your opinion on Java changes the fact that Microsoft used it's monopoly to execute an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy on Java. It is well documented since they lost an anti-trust court case on it [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
That lawsuit was overturned on appeal. The DOJ settled with Microsoft's offer to publish some APIs, instead of launching another trial.
The Java stuff wasn't even the craziest part. The whole thing from investigation to the appeal took the FTC and DOJ 11 years, where they were unable to kill of Microsoft's dominance of Internet Explorer through lawfare, but it only took Mozilla and later Google six years, nearly half that time, for an open-source web browsers to have more market share than Internet Explorer.
It turns out that a better product was all that was needed. It's too bad that the Mozilla Foundation has changed course and is now adamant that Firefox be as unusable as possible.
Back when the word hacker still meant something, that was the opinion of most hackers. Microsoft being bad guys did not make early Java versions good.
[EDIT] I'd actually say MS losing the J# lawsuit was a net positive since it gave Hejlsberg the opportunity to create C#.
What does it matter if Java was good or bad? The point is Windows API didn’t win on merit but because MS attacked every competition
That’s not really true: it just didn’t win on the merits you care about. But it did have other merits: backwards and forwards compatibility, excellent developer documentation, and no need for expensive workstation grade hardware.
I don’t disagree on the skullduggery, but it’s worth bearing in mind that Sun, Oracle, IBM, and all the other big vendors of that period engaged in similar skullduggery. Microsoft was simply better at it, had better timing/luck, and therefore more resources and reach to play those games.
But one of those companies was always destined to become a scumbag monopoly: if it hadn’t been Microsoft, it would have been one of the others.
And the war to kick them back into line through OSS would have played out similarly, I suspect.
Sun was actually a decent company once upon a time. Their problem was that Microsoft excluded them from the market and starved them for money for so long that their hardware stopped being competitive, so that by the time Java made it so you could run some software on it, nobody wanted their hardware regardless.
It was only after they went bankrupt and got bought by Oracle that things like OpenSolaris getting killed off and Java lawsuits started happening.
> "Their problem was that Microsoft excluded them from the market and starved them for money..."
That is not what happened. Sun Microsystems had immense revenue and clout in the server and enterprise space because of the dotcom boom, so much so that their advertising declared "We're the dot in dotcom." Microsoft was trying to duke it out with them in the server space but Windows Server was just barely starting to become decent at that point so MS didn't get all that much traction.
When the dotcom bust hit, Sun went into a tailspin because of the glut of Sun server hardware from dead dotcoms at bargain basement prices. That eventually passed but by that time Linux + Intel was good enough to undercut both Sun and Microsoft in the server space. With no way to compete with free as in beer software, Sun was doomed.
> Sun Microsystems had immense revenue and clout in the server and enterprise space because of the dotcom boom, so much so that their advertising declared "We're the dot in dotcom."
Which is why Microsoft had to use such dirty tricks to prevent them from making inroads into workstations and desktops at the point that they still had competitive hardware.
> With no way to compete with free as in beer software, Sun was doomed.
Sun was a hardware company that did everything it could to commoditize software. That strategy works extremely well for hardware companies -- Intel successfully did the same thing for many years -- as long as their hardware is competitive.
They were perfectly content to sell SPARC hardware with Linux on it. But to do that they need to sell enough of it to keep up the R&D, i.e. they needed to ship desktop chips in similar quantities to Intel instead of only servers.
Original Sun hardware was rugged, operating mounted in truck beds running across corrugated roads rugged, optional full Faraday shielding for box, cables, and monitors tough. Really positive "never going to let you go" slotting of expansion cards into motherboard that resisted vibration issues. Fans that could go in a building HVAC.
That came at a cost and the market size of people that really really wanted / needed that field toughness was considerably smaller than the general office usage market.
Because that's the market you can win when you're locked out of the mass market. But it's also not sustainable because then the mass market product will move up (Xeons based on x86) and you still can't move down with Microsoft blocking you.
Whereas if not for that, you could do both. Design a solid chip and then put dozens of them in a big iron cabinet for big money but also offer desktops with just one of them for prices that compete with Dell. Except that Dell's customers expect to open their existing Office documents and run their Windows API proprietary software and then won't buy from you.
It went the other way around. Object-oriented programming came out of academia, before Sun adopted it into Java. They adopted it full-force, making programmers jump through all of its hoops whether they wanted to or not, unlike C++ and Python where for most programs, the only hint of the language being object oriented is the syntax.
The point is not that Win32 is exemplary. The point is that it's compatible. More compatible, in some cases, than native apps for non-Windows platforms. A Win32 binary that runs in Wine is likely to work on more Linux distros than a native Linux binary, due to decisions made by glibc and distro maintainers over the years.
Uh, no, a Win32 binary will run in Wine because of the concerted effort of thousands of talented developers for more than a decade, painstakingly reimplemting Win32 into a a compatibility layer for it to run on Linux.
There has been little to no interest in doing the reverse, at least until WSL, which is just containers anyways. (WSfU barely counts as an "attempt.")
I would hardly consider anything relying on a compatibility shim "compatible." Especially since Wine is not a perfect shim!
glibc is the main reason linux on the desktop has such a low adoption rate.
you cant just go and download a precompiled blob from a website and run it everywhere, like you can with macOS and Windows.
glibc only targets one audience, one which can recompile its apps when needed.
What linux badly needs is a stable ABI for Userspace Apps, and Win32 is just that sadly.
> you cant just go and download a precompiled blob from a website and run it everywhere, like you can with macOS and Windows.
Sure you can! It's called AppImage or Flatpak or Snap!
I'm also not sure why compiling is treated as some taboo? It's not like Windows where it's actually impossible to set up a toolchain. Your distro comes with one installed! So that means you can run a single installer file, just like in Windows, except this is a shell script or anything else—and it can just compile and link everything for you, quite easily! The user doesn't have to know or understand how this works at all.
Why is that bad? It's bad to run binary blobs...! It's good to tailor your software to your specific environment and hardware!
they don't run without a runtime, and that runtime is backed by glibc, they just moved the issue one more layer.
Virtually all software for the desktop is compiled once and then shipped to users and they never see the source.
This works for Windows and macOS because their ABI allows it. For Linux you have to target each and every distro like a whole OS and keep up with it or your app won't run anymore after a few years.
This is also the reason why Linux has package managers and windows didn't have a official one for nearly 40 years. So its not all bad.
I kinda see this as a usability issue. If the app developer is willing to wrap the whole “download source and then compile” with a one click installation shield type software, most users would be fine.
But yeah then they need to track distros and such. I hope there are a couple of distros that have better back compatibility eventually.
It's the same problem, just spread out to different layers...Windows had DLL hell too, and then eventually everyone just packaged all of their required versions of DLLs and redistributables into their MSI.
What about Linux do you think changes so much? Everything still speaks X11 or PulseAudio on desktop. More broadly, the standard library is...the standard library? What's the specific issue?
Proton represents Valve's failure to make Linux gaming attractive to game studios.
Not even those that have Android/Linux NDK builds, bother with porting to GNU/Linux.
Besides blaming Microsoft, look inside into the endless reboots of audio stack, GNOME vs KDE vs XFCE vs Sway vs whatever is cool in Linux Desktops this month, X Windows vs Wayland,...
I was a believer, until 2010, then went back into Windows 7. If it wasn't for gaming and .NET, I would probably be on macOS instead.
Taking care of Linux deployments is part of my job, so I know pretty well how it goes today, don't need the have you tried standard Linux forum replies.
> Proton represents Valve's failure to make Linux gaming attractive to game studios.
> Not even those that have Android/Linux NDK builds, bother with porting to GNU/Linux.
It is a huge hassle to make a new build to a new platform. You double build system, release management, and testing. Compared to just one plat. Games are complicated, and testing all the dynamic behaviour is also complicated.
Making just a Win32 build really saves resources.
Also Win32 has been a stable api for a long time. Linux apis tend to change, and old games don't get re-built. The win32 build is therefore also provably a lot more long lived, compered to anything you build on linux.
Thats also important because of the Dont Kill Games effort and so on.
That reasoning fails flat given the same studios have no issues supporting iOS, PlayStation, Swift and XBox, which are completely alien to what is used on Android NDK, APIs that are GNU/Linux compatible for 3D rendering, audio and asset loading.
Valve basically failed to provide the business value for those studios.
Microsoft releases new APIs too, but no one uses them, especially not games.
XDK, GDK and Agility SDK are also part of API updates.
All true, but simultaneously, if you look at it not in the “how did we get here” but “what’s out there today” light, it’s an option that can run on a lot of platforms. Not by some particular merit but because history happened this way - but that’s not a problem with the technology itself.
I concur.
The article defines "success" in the Windows context as being "available everywhere". It does not address how it got to that point.
And sure, you might not like Microsoft, and you may not like how it became successful (using the above definition) but the fact that it is available everywhere is not in dispute.
Of course most successful things have murky pasts. We don't necessarily agree with how it got there, but there it is. That is, at least in the technical sense irrelevant. You may prefer LP's or CD's, but streaming is now the successful way to get your music.
That doesn't mean it's the only way though, and of course you are free to not use Windows programs, or play games via Steam etc. That is your choice.
If you listen to CS professors you'd believe that Haskell would be very successful despite having limited if none real world usage. The reality is that catering to your users is much more important than having idealistic system.
In my experience even with games that have native Linux support running through proton seems to have less issues.
winapi introduced event based programming to the masses and took it to the next level. You could argue that they weren't the first, but blanket singling it out as bad design makes no sense.
This control flow has been taught everywhere and is the basis of node's async loop (node waits on io, winapi waits on kb/mouse/timers) so "no system copied it" is complete ignorance. It is the first thing I think of when I'm designing an async flow.
> The ecosystem was not won on technical merit.
This is always the case.
> Wine and Proton are not tributes to Win32's portability.
I emphatically disagree. It is a hilarious and catastrophic failure of Linux userspace that the best API for running games on Linux is Win32. This has absolutely nothing to do with what Microsoft locking down the desktop market. It has 100% literally everything to do with Linux userspace being a clusterfuck of terrible design.
Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked. They didn't have to. They could have simply invented a better API that didn't suck. But that's quite hard.
So yeah. I emphatically, but respectfully, disagree with your entire thesis.
It's Linux's failure that one of the world's biggest corporations outspent it on marketing by orders of magnitude? You can sell crap like hotcakes with enough money and advertising minds. Yours isn't really an argument for Linux APIs being any worse or better quality.
> Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked.
WINE would have been invented one way or another because enough people would have wanted to run Windows programs on Linux in a world where Linux had dominant market share. For Pete's sake, there are Commodore 64 emulators for Linux in a world where that system has been dead for decades. It has nothing to do with what "works" or not. WINE and Proton are developed as actively as they are today because Microslop has been able to market so effectively to convince average joes and businesss leaders to buy their crappy OS. This has nothing to do with the quality of APIs.
> They could have simply invented a better API that didn't suck.
Is there ever a situation where this statement isn't true? Everything built in software can be seen as sucking, and all software could have been written better the first time around.
> It's Linux's failure that one of the world's biggest corporations outspent it on marketing by orders of magnitude?
No, It is Linux's severe failure that it lacked a singular, stable, and unified userspace GUI API.
> No, It is Linux's severe failure that it lacked a singular, stable, and unified userspace GUI API.
Careful, some people are too hell bend on idealogies than making a reliable product. They'd never understand this.
This is one of the reasons why open source (free as in beer) will never work for anything serious. When my work depends upon a software someone made for free, there's an unnecessary power dynamic in play where since I didn't pay for it, they can rugpull me anytime. Before someone comes with the argument of forking, that's not how an economy works. I can't be the farmer, the truck driver, the salesman and sometimes even the buyer at the same time.
The kernel doesn't owe anything to the distros, which is insane, distros doesn't owe anything to the various libraries and vice versa, none of them owes anything to the application developers. It's a boat where each person is rowing in their own direction because they don't care what others does with their code and they don't have to. Because they are working for FREE®.
The effects of this is catastrophic. Everytime I try to switch, I can't find a single userspace application that works half as good as windows applications. People need incentives to make their work good, no one does anything for free. Free just means it sucks.
If microsoft/apple/google tomorrow releases their own distro, every single one will abandon their flavor of the week arch/ubuntu/mint/fedora for that one. One that's made by people in exchange for money. I bet the ubuntu developers use macbooks.
> Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked.
Completely untrue - Linux "adopted" Win32 because the majority of video games are written for Windows (and thus Win32).
They could not have invented a better API because the entire reason Proton exists is because developers don't build native Linux games.
> because developers don't build native Linux games.
Correct. However you grossly misunderstand why why dev don't build native Linux games. The answer is that distributing proprietary software that works on "Linux" is an absolute unmitigated clusterfuck of pain, misery, and woe.
Cross-platfrom is very very easy. It's a solved problem. There are indie devs with custom engines that can easily ship for Windows, macOS, iPhone, Android, Playstation, Switch, and Xbox.
If Linux userspace had an ABI that wasn't garbage then adding "Linux" to that list would be very easy. The fact that devs don't and it is your primary clue.
I keep putting "Linux" in quotes because back in the day with r/LinuxGaming would spam Kickstarters begging for Linux support that's what they asked for. Of course there is no such thing as shipping for Linux. There is the Linux kernel and glibc and a kajillion different distros that are all unique and terrible in an myriad of different ways.
And it turns out that Linux is such a minefield clusterfuck that the actually best ABI is Win32. It'd be great if Linux designed a new ABI that was better. Seriously, that'd be awesome. But in the meantime Win32 it is!
> It is a hilarious and catastrophic failure of Linux userspace that the best API for running games on Linux is Win32
Studios don't target Linux, they target Windows and sometimes Mac.
Imagine if Flappy Bird targeted only iPhone, because there were only 50,000,000 Android users in the world (hardly worth supporting). Then Android creates an iPhone runtime on Android so people can play Flappy Bird on it, and you conclude "iPhone actually worked, this is evidence that Android is a hilarious and catastrophic failure."
the other way around is kind of how libgdx games run on iOS :)
I don't need to imagine a made-up scenario that doesn't make sense. We can look at what has happened at face value.
The calculus is very very very boring and simple. Game devs will support every single platform on the planet in which the cost to support that platform - both directly and long-term maintenance - is less than the increased revenue that platform provides.
It is not uncommon for indie games on custom engines to support Windows, Playstation, Switch, Switch 2, Xbox. And, depending on the game, iOS or Android. Sometimes macOS although that's increasingly rare.
Native Linux builds are pretty rare. Especially before Proton got pretty good with Steamdeck release.
Supporting Linux is a monumentally tremendous pain in the ass. Radically more than literally any other platform. It is hands-down the hardest and most painful to support natively. So painful that emulating Win32 is a clear win. Valve's runtime helps a lot. And supporting another path is just a waste of time.
Very sad!
> The calculus is very very very boring and simple. Game devs will support every single platform on the planet in which the cost to support that platform - both directly and long-term maintenance - is less than the increased revenue that platform provides.
Companies end up not doing profitable things all the time, for many reasons. One rational reason is that while action 1 might be profitable, action 2 is even more profitable. So the fact that Linux is not supported does not show that it would not be profitable, but rather that there are other things the companies can use labour for which they think is even more profitable. If they could freely clone their employees (and "unclone" them afterwards) all profitable things would get done.
(This is just nitpicking about your economic argument, I have no reason to think your conclusion is wrong).
> Supporting Linux is a monumentally tremendous pain in the ass. Radically more than literally any other platform. It is hands-down the hardest and most painful to support natively.
Funny, I have the same feelings after 5 seconds of using MSVC or looking at Win32 documentation. Or is it WinRT now, or is it .NET Core, or .NET Framework, or UWP or OLE or COM, or whatever the API du jour is which will be slightly incompatible and incomplete with the rest of the ecosystem in poorly documented and inscrutable ways?
Performance profiling and debugging tools are critical for game development. What's your equivalent to strace again, the one that's built into the system natively? There isn't one?
All major game engines I am aware of support native Linux builds and have for years, anyways.
I guess there's a reason 80% of the servers in the world run Windows. Because it's so hard to develop for. Er, uh...no wait!
Sarcasm is an extremely poor method of communication. Speak plainly and clearly.
> Performance profiling and debugging tools are critical for game development.
Profiling and debugging tools are RADICALLY superior on Windows. RADICALLY. GDB/LLDB is garbage. For debugging Visual Studio (for adults, not VSCode), or on special occassion WinDbg, is great. Raddbg may be awesome some day and may also support Linux. That'll be great. Today is not that day.
Superluminal is spectacular. They're working very hard on a Linux version. It's taking them a long time because Linux is bad.
> All major game engines I am aware of support native Linux builds and have for years, anyways.
Unity and Unreal do have buttons to export to Linux. Most proprietary game engines don't have Linux clients. Linux for headless servers you control is fine.
> 80% of the servers
Yawn.
The Linux pain is trying to deploy proprietary binaries that run on customer machines which are infinite in variation. Running headless on a single Linux image you control is very different.
Anyhow. Let me know when you ship a game with 3D graphics to customers and have to deal with all their support issues!
Hey, want to race to install toolchains? I'll install everything I need to build the Linux kernel and, say, typical SDL2 applications. I'll give you a 3 hour head start, all you have to do is install Visual Studio, WDK, and the Windows SDK, and hope they play nicely with each other!
Good luck! Then we can switch places so you can install for the 5.3% (and growing) of your gaming userbase that doesn't use an OS with ads in it.
P.S. he who lives in the house of WinDbg is not allowed to throw stones. At anyone. Ever. Nobody thinks that it is "great," you must be kidding.
I think you are coming at this with very different priorities. For most people, installing tool chains is a one time job, that they can grit their teeth through if it works well for them. No one wants to constantly install or reinstall and make sure the installation process is lightning fast.
It's the reason why Linux still hasn't taken off on desktop. People want good application support, not infinite customisations and blazing fast compile speeds. In fact, slow compile speeds might even give people an excuse to go chat with colleagues and take breaks. What you want is not what others want too
It's funny you mention that.
You know which platform is super duper mega easy to cross-compile to? And you know what platfrom is (almost) FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to compile against an arbitrarily old version of glibc? The answer (in order) is Windows and Linux.
But in anycase you still have it wrong. Compiling and running for your machine isn't the problem. The question is can you give me a binary that runs on my machine. And also I'm not going to tell you what the environment is. But I will yell at you if it doesn't work.
Anyhow. Portable toolchain install for MSVC + WinSDK took about 30 seconds to download. Very easy. Here you go: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/mmozeiko/7f3162ec2988e81e...
I do agree it's annoying this isn't default behavior.
> you must be kidding.
Geez you are very frustrating to communicate with. I literally said "for special occasion". Good grief. Visual Studio debugger is kinda mediocre but still best-in-class and Linux doesn't even have an equivalent to compare against. WinDbg has some slick commands for super niche cases. Awful GUI with no discoverability though. (Just like Linux! bad dum tsh)
There's something deeply satisfying about compiling a Win32 desktop application and knowing that single binary will run unmodified on essentially every Windows machine from XP onward, and look nearly identical doing it. High-DPI is the one real caveat, but even that's manageable with a manifest. I'm not sure any other platform-native API comes close to that combination of reach and consistency. Running them on other operating systems is really just a bonus.
I am not sure if this holds, I have witnessed apps that dont work in newer versions of Windows.
They exist but they’re in the minority. Compare this with the Linux world, where userspace compatibility between one major distro release and the next, 12 months apart is very much a roll of the dice.
This is true.
To be fair, if you use only the Linux syscall interface, then a program that you compiled on x86 in the 90s will probably still run anywhere today. Linus is adamant about this.
But if you want to use... anything else, then it's unlikely to work at all unless you are very specific about your target. There isn't one company deciding that glibc or mesa or whatever is binary backward compatible on every kernel for every platform forever. Microsoft is, somewhat, one such company. That's why System32\*.dll have such stable interfaces -- it's their job to translate whatever late 90s system/graphics facilities some boomer dreamed up into whatever the current Windows hodgepodge of system services support. It's no wonder Microsoft is trying to drop support for hardware like crazy.
This implicit compatibility isn't true for all Windows programs, though. Consider Visual Studio. Couldn't compile my console program on my computer and run it on my dad's computer. He had to first install the "Redistributable," which for him and most people might as well be a rootkit and a super scary virus program bad guy.
> To be fair, if you use only the Linux syscall interface, then a program that you compiled on x86 in the 90s will probably still run anywhere today. Linus is adamant about this.
This is frankly the opposite of how it should've been. Who cares that the kernel ABI doesn't change from release to release? As an end-user, I couldn't care less. Even as a developer I care very little indeed, because I'm not writing drivers. I'm almost never programming directly against the kernel's interface but rather using my language's standard library, which is already an abstraction over the kernel interface.
Platform vendors (this includes distro maintainers) should recompile and re-package libraries for each new ABI in each OS release, done. End-users won't ever notice, they can run their applications portably because the user-mode library ABIs haven't changed... Which is what Win32 has done, and what glibc has consistently failed to do.
I think Windows also discourages people to use their syscall directly. It could change from version to version so they should use the API.
The true success of WinAPI, including originally with Windows, is that it provided stable ABI from version to version, and didn't lock you into any language.
The Unix world was lazy about it because of the approach of recompiling across somewhat source compatible systems thanks to POSIX, so there was reasonably fast portability if you didn't go too far off the beaten path.
But doing anything other than C (w/ Cfront maybe) and Fortran and Pascal was a problem, even without binary compat. Even from version to version (legacy of which we now have in glibc breaking binary compat all the time).
Microsoft went hard on the idea that if you bought/build a program for Windows version X, it would run on version X+1. You didn't have to buy a special upgraded version. You could update easier.
The same approach later drove introduction of things like PC System Design Guide and ACPI so you could just upgrade your computers instead of waiting for special OS upgrade just to boot (like it was common in other platforms, including Mac, VMS, and Unix workstation world).
Design wise, GUI parts of WinAPI aren't all that different from working with X intrinsics etc libraries (i.e. the parts above raw xlib)
Hasn't it taken gargantuan multi decade efforts of hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations to make it work at all, let alone well, on Linux?
How is that successful cross platform?
Hasn't it taken gargantuan multi decade efforts of hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations to make [WINE] work at all, let alone well, on Linux?
Arguably there has been equal or larger effort invested/wasted in cross-platform and cross-distro frameworks/APIs/packaging and yet the result still doesn't work. Partly that's due to duplication of effort; there's (mostly) one WINE competing with Qt/Gtk/whatever times Snap/Flatpak/AppImage/whatever.
>> How is that successful cross platform?
Because hundreds of developers, multiple open source projects and the backing of major corporations made it happen, not because Microsoft wanted it but in spite of it.
In this case the route to success was via marketing (isn't it always so?), via market share, via application dominance (attracting developers to develop for the platform), and via insane levels of backward's compatibility. It was successful not because of the code itself (end users don't care 2 figs about the elegance of the code) but because they optimized for the end user experience.
Linux optimized for the experienced, technically adept user, who wanted to fiddle, customize and could write programs. Apple optimized for the "now", ignoring the past and regularly made existing programs obsolete and unrunnable.
I wrote windows programs in 1995. They still run today. They have run on all versions of Windows since then, without even a recompile. Everything I have [1] just keeps running. And it turns out, that's something users really want.
I get that we're all technical folk here. I get that we strive for technical excellence and elegance. I get that we operate in the "now", ignoring hardware and software from the past. But the market is different, and wants different things. If you want a successful business you need to understand the market, not just your own aesthetics. Microsoft understands that, and that's why the market (especially the business market) relies on them.
[1] - Except games. Copy protection on some of my games means they don't run anymore - but to be fair those were hacks designed specifically to prevent the game running in the first place.
It is successful because it succeeded. Not because how it succeeded with right, great or ideal. People in this thread keep confusing these two points.
I think it is NOT a gigantic success.
It's an OK success.
A gigantic success would mean there's no friction at all running Windows apps on other platforms.
Even with all that development work it is a LONG way from easy to run Windows apps on Linux.
Cuz there's good software written against it. And it doesn't need to be recompiled.
Will I ever target it? No, I'd rather you rip my bones and eyes out. But it's unarguably successful.
As an added bonus, since win32 is so old. AI is quite strong at generating code for it, I have even had success with qwen 3.5 1.5B parameters with win32 and opengl 1.1
I think not only win32 but win32 + directx API, the most used API for gaming industry. Wine , Proton , Crossover, DXVK, VKD3D, D3DMetal , WineD3D, Apple game porting toolkit , SteamOS , Winlator/Gamehub etc android Wine variant , ReactOS , MinGW from that API
Considering you can use 500 kilobyte distro of tcc that can self compile to build win32 apps and those versions will very easily run on wine. I think it is a valid point and a strategy I have used for sometime. Since windows can't decide what you should use for developing Windows apps
> In the real world, the internet is TCP/IP
I guess he missed http3, which now makes up 35% of web traffic.
> something that comes from consensus from a big, top-down standardisation body usually fails.
So IETF is the "big, top-down standardisation body" producing "bloated, inefficient and largely unused standards" here?
Wouldn't be the first time someone characterized it as such.
> The internet is an example of the implementation of a top-down approach when a scientist submits a paper for an RFC and iterates on it until it's de-facto protocol of the internet.
Yeah, he must be talking about the IETF. Very consensus-driven, most participants funded by vendors, difficult to iterate after RFC approval.
> While their nimbler competition is being adopted, iterated, and expanded. In the internet protocol use cases, OSI Model is now essentially just a theory taught in networking training, certification, and classes. In the real world, the internet is TCP/IP, and it's TCP IP that runs on computers, phones, and other devices.
Now I'm confused. TCP/IP are literally defined by IETF RFCs.
Technically the Internet runs on "the Internet Protocol Suite" but people just say "TCP/IP" for short. That doesn't mean to exclude UDP, SCTP, or whatever.
So what exactly does he mean then?
He means the Internet runs on the Internet Protocol Suite and not the "superior" OSI Protocol Suite (that people under age 50 have never heard of because it failed).
The OSI model still gets taught in networking classes to people in their teens and 20s.
And because of that, badly reinvented mostly through HTTP
http3 operates on a different OSI layer
Yes, which the article claims is just a theory now, irrelevant for the real world. More crucially though, http3 doesn't use TCP because it is built on top of UDP.
It's like how people say "pass me the butter" despite there's just a tub of margarine on the table.
Sometimes I think that, if Java ditched the idea of JVM and followed what modern languages did today (write once, compile on every major platform), things would be different.
I don't think so. Oracle isn’t a consumer-facing company and doesn't really care about that sector. SWT and Swing will likely remain as ugly as they are for the next century, regardless of their popularity.
Microsoft, Google, and Apple have invested millions to polish their GUI solutions because that’s where their revenue comes from.
JavaFX is surprisingly decent. Nobody cares bc the web ate everything.
The JVM and the ecosystem it sustains are more important than Java itself. The main reason newer languages can run "everywhere" is because hardware has been commoditized and the number of server OSes has been reduced to two. The JVM was designed to flatten a much more diverse environment than what we have today. Whatever you produce that can run on the JVM will still be runnable in 30 years.
What's even sadder is that was built and Sun fought against it because they were worried that devs would only compile for Win32.
The trouble there is that Sun was right about that.
Doing it that way works great for open source where anyone can recompile the software for a new target, but for proprietary software they would have given you a Windows blob and that's about it.
Meanwhile the problems with Java were mostly not the JVM. Its current problem is, of course, Oracle.
That’s like praising English as common language around the world but ignoring why that is the case.
It's been a joke for years that "Win32 is the most stable API on Linux".
It's not that the train wasn't successful.
kinda